Mumbai Court November 2006 Judgments

Tirathdas Pokhardas Kalda Vs. Smt. Suribai Assumal Moolchandani and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR202

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this petition filed under art. 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner/landlord who is original plaintiff has challenged the reversing judgment of Appellate Court whereby decree of eviction of present respondents/defendants/original tenants by Trial Court has been set aside & his suit came to be dismissed. The petitioner landlord is aged about 83 years and he filed in the suit after obtaining permission from Rent Controller on the ground of bonafide need in proceedings instituted in 1988/89. Hence by consent of parties petition has been heard finally at the stage of admission itself. Rule is accordingly made returnable forthwith and case is heard finally. 2. Petitioner is owner of house number 107/A situated at Teen Nal square (a commercial locality) at Nagpur. One shop block consisting of two rooms about 500 square feet in area was initially let out by him to two brothers by name Assumal and Lalumal for rent of Rs. 500/-per month and these brothers we...

ifb Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(211)ELT366(Bom)

ORDER1. Heard. As the petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself, as far as respondent No. 2 is concerned being a formal party he need not be served for the purpose of disposing of this petition.2. The subject matter of the petitidon pertains to the rejection of the application filed by the petitioners seeking condonation of delay in filing application for fixation of Brand Rate of duty drawback under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995. The main contention of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 2 being the competent authority is vested with the powers to condone the delay in filing application and inspite of such application being made without giving an opportunity to the petitioners, respondent No. 4 has passed the impugned Order by letter dated 20-6-2006 annexed to the petition at Exh. 'H'. It is submitted that an application for fixation of Brand Rate of duty drawback has to be preferred within 90 days from the date of...

Santosh Manikrao Gundale Vs. Rameshwar Wamanrao Tak and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2007)BC211; 2007(1)BomCR905

M.G. Gaikwad, J.1. Heard Mr. Ubale, Advocate for appellant. According to Mr. Ubale, the order of acquittal is not justified as the accused himself has admitted issuance of cheque and in rebuttal of the presumption arising under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused did not step into the witness box nor examined any other witness. So according to him, the judgment of acquittal suffers from infirmities, so leave needs to be granted to prefer appeal against acquittal.2. On the other hand, Advocate Mr. Chapalgaonkar pointed out from the judgment itself that the defence of the accused that the blank cheques were issued in favour of complainant's father by way of security is probabalised by the statement of complainant himself. Complainant was a boy of 18 years and claimed to have advanced amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- for which he has not produced any document to show his source of earnings. In two other cases, the accused came to be acquitted. Accepting this defence put forth b...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Dinesh and Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The facts of the case are, the respondents M/s Dinesh & Co were manufacturing and clearing Tata tie pins/service pins' 25 and 35 made of silver and gold respectively and classified them as articles of silver/gold under Chapter Heading 7101.70 & 7101.90 respectively and claimed exemption under notification 4/97 dated 1.3.97 claim a nil rate of duty. This has been upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue is in appeal against this order.3. Ld D.R. submits that as per proviso 7(a) of Chapter Heading 71 under Section XIV pins or service pins made of silver and gold are classifiable under heading 7101.40 as an article of jewellery. Tie pin is not an article of jewellery and exemption under notification 4/97 was applicable only to articles of silver or gold ornaments, the same was not applicable to tie pins in view of the fact that as per Explanation to notification 4/97 ornaments has been defined as articles for personal adornment or for adornment of any idol, deity or any other...

Vinita Lakhotia Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Acc)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(209)ELT52Tri(Mum.)bai

1. We have heard both sides on the application for condonation of delay of 924 days in filing the above appeal.2. We note that the applicant had filed writ petition against the impugned order of the Commissioner(Appeals) before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court which was ultimately disposed of vide order dated 18-3-06, wherein the High Court held that the applicant and M/s. Premium Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. (of which the applicant is the director) are at liberty to file appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and both petitioners are at liberty to apply for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.The company filed appeal and COD application soon after the High Court order and delay was condoned in the light of the High Court order, as seen from Order No. M/394/WZB/2006/C.II, dated 6-6-2006 in C/MA(COD) 1194/06) . However, the present applicant did not file appeal immediately after the High Court order but waited till October, 2006, in spite of the liberty given to her to file appeal and to apply fo...

Rochem Separation Systems Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 43,50,096/- and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. The demand has been confirmed on Rochem Disc and Tube Reverse Osmosis (DTRO) falling under Ch. Heading 84.21 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985, by denial of benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.3/2004-C.E. dated 8-1-2004 and Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. dated 1-3-2002 by Sl. No. 193 of the Table thereto read with List 6 of the Notification. The period of dispute is from March to May 2005.2. The benefit of Notification No. 3/2004 is available inter alia to all items of machinery, including instruments, apparatus etc. required for setting up of water supply plants. It is the case of the department that the goods in question are complete plant and therefore, not covered by the benefit of exemption of the said notification. Prima facie, the applicants have not been able to satisfy us with reference to the acceptable material that the goods are machine...

Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC42

1. Heard both sides. The issue involved is whether the appellants are liable to pay service tax as "Mandap Keepers" under Section 65(67) of the Finance Act 1994 for providing services of salt water swimming bath to prompt and encourage the sport of swimming and letting out the premises to members for celebration of some events.2. The ld. Counsel for the appellants interalia contended that the taxable service in relation to the Mandap Keepers under Section 65(4)(i) of the Finance Act 1994 defines " as any service provided to a client by Mandap Keepers in relation to the use of Mandap in any manner including the facilities provided to the client in relation to such use and also the services, if any, rendered as a caterer." His contention is that the relationship between the members and the trust is not one of a client and professional. Letting of the premises to its members was not his normal line of work. Since the many activities of the trust are to maintain the salt water swimming ba...

Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)5STR139

1. We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 25,89,31,078 and education cess of Rs. 16,72,844 confirmed as a result of holding that, since the applicants were engaged in hire purchase finance, they were liable to service tax under Section 65(10) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, which covers "banking and other financial services" which inter alia means "financial leasing services including equipment leasing and hire purchase by a body corporate", and penalty of amount equal to the service tax and cess, under Section 78, in addition to Rs. 200 per day during which failure to pay tax continues under Section 76, and Rs. 1,000 under Section 77. The period in dispute is July 16, 2001 to March 31, 2005.2. It is the contention of the applicants that they are not carrying on the business of hire purchase but that of hire purchase financing and therefore not liable to service tax under Section 65(10), while it is the contention of the Reve...

Ajanta Print Arts Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue referred to the Larger Bench is the classification of "Exposed Aluminium Plates" - whether under Chapter Heading 37.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff, 1985 eligible to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986, as contended by the assessees or under Central Excise Tariff subheading 8442.00 which is not covered by the notification above mentioned.2. None appears for the assessees and hence we have heard learned S.D.R. and perused the records. We find that in the case of Kasturi & Sons v. Collector of Customs identical goods namely photo-sensitive plates for printing were held to fall for classification under heading 84.34 of the Customs Tariff Act and classification under Heading 37.01/08 was not accepted. This decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Supreme Court by dismissal of the revenue's appeal, as seen from 1997 (94) E.L.T. A56 (S.C.). In the case of Collector of Customs v. Kumudan Publications (P) Ltd. th...

Tonira Pharma Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides at length on 1-2-2006, 6-2-2006 and 7-2-2006. Under the impugned order, customs duty demand of Rs. 8,48,16,660/- and excise duty demand of Rs. 14,13,208/-have been confirmed and penalties amounting to Rs. 8,84,16,660/- and Rs. 14,13,208/- have also been imposed.2. By written synopsis dated 24-3-2006, the Id. Advocate for the appellants has summarized his arguments as follows: The imported Ascorbic Acid - FCC grade IV and TMBA were relabeled by the appellants. A.1 The show cause notice (internal page 11, bottom page 318 of Vol.-II) reads as under: It is noticed that Shri Lalit Modi in his statement dated 4-1-2001, categorically stated that Ascorbic Acid IP. and TMBA were not actually manufactured in their factory. He further stated that the company sold the said goods imported by them, as such without doing any processing, in the very same drums in which the raw materials were received, after replacing the outer labels.... A.2 The appellants had affixed a label on t...